7 ms·
From my discussions with a friend with intimate knowledge of the software side of Cruise, there is wild skepticism within the co that they even have the hardwar
by arosier 9y ago
From my discussions with a friend with intimate knowledge of the software side of Cruise, there is wild skepticism within the co that they even have the hardware needed to go L4 or L5. Big promises being made to GM by Kyle which is leading to smoke and mirrors to distract/buy time from more critical problems "under the hood."
- adewinter 9y agoWhat does "go L4 or L5" mean?
- serg_chernata 9y agoLevels 4 and 5 of driving automation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Levels_of_driving_automation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Levels_of_drivi...
- jhkim 9y agohttp://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/ http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/ no driving automation (level 0) to full driving automation (level 5)
- nrb 9y agoIt's a classification[1] for the level of automated driving capabilities in a vehicle. 1) https://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf https://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sjg007 9y agoL5 is fate of the furious level
- robotresearcher 9y agoThey are Lagrange Points. The cars don't have the hardware to reach them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point Or maybe there's some notation collision...
- inverse_pi 9y agohmm I thought the bottleneck would be on the software side? I saw at least 2 lidars (possibly 3) on the car in the article. Of course we don't know if that's sufficient for L4, L5 but other companies are running with only 1 lidar.
- Smurfix 9y agoPeople can get by with zero LIDARs. There's no reason why autonomous cars couldn't. The real problems are elsewhere (emergency vehicles, ambiguous situations, construction, …). We'll need operators on standby for a looong time still. Good luck driving in areas without decent fast cell networking.
- lostmsu 9y agoPeople's optical system has much wider ranges in many parameters than photo/video camera matrices.
- madmax108 9y agoI've been speaking to friends working at different companies across the self-driving industry, and almost all of them have their fair share of skepticism of L4 or L5, including those who are actively researching in the field. The main reason for this is that current self-driving tech has plateaued with most companies going with the redundancy based approach (let's have 3 LIDARs instead of 1, and make that 4 IR sensors on each side instead of 2 etc.) simply because there is no revolutionary new tech that is a panacea to current L1 problems. Sadly, explaining this to investors is next to impossible, so everyone keeps selling the same idea with a few more whistles as the next big thing while everyone is waiting for the big tech breakthrough that makes actual self-driving cars possible. Until then, expect many more controlled environment (eg. airports or freeways where traffic is mostly smooth flowing, or roads with perfectly marked stop signs and pavement paint).
- skadamat 9y agoI recently read about Luminar (https://www.luminartech.com/ https://www.luminartech.com/) and their focus on making affordable, accurate LIDAR tech. Wonder if there are other components like this that need to be optimized and combined to get to L4 and L5
- bobsil1 9y agoSensors help, but the real bottleneck for edge cases is artificial general intelligence.
- elevensies 9y agoThey say they are putting them on the roads of CA in a matter of weeks. I believe miles driven and disengagements must be reported around the end of 2017. So it should be easy enough to determine is four months or so if they're doing significant autonomous miles. ( here is the 2016 report: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/deade5b7-5b10-4b25-a926-78484dbc2b31/GMCruise_disengage_report_2016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/deade5b7-5b10-4b25... , found here: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disengagement_report_2016 https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disen... )
- dchichkov 9y agoTLDR, in California, 2016, autonomous miles: Google 636k Cruise 10k Delphi 3k Nissan 3k Mercedes 0.7k BMW 0.6k Tesla 0.6k Ford 0.6k Bosch, Honda, Volkswagen 0k
- tmpnam7280557 9y agoI can confirm that Cruise Automation's software is simply not viable as the basis of a self-driving car.
- snowmaker 9y agoHow do you know that? Do you work for Cruise?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tmpnam7280557 9y agoHow can I prove this to you without potentially harming myself?
- jakarta 9y agowhat is wrong with their technology?
- tmpnam7280557 9y agoAn easy question to answer. But I need to be careful about disclosing details in a public forum. System is fundamentally unsuitable for automotive or other timing-critical applications. Engineered wrong from the beginning. It's a dead end.
- mdm_312 9y agoYou created your account 19hrs ago....sketchy.
- tmpnam7280557 9y agoYes, I am commenting anonymously. It's necessary. Cruise Automation can produce a good demo. Shortcuts have been taken to produce good-looking results. Don't be deceived. No car running the current software (or any software derived from it) will ever operate reliably. Posted below, you will find a deleted comment from one of my fellow Cruise employees. That comment is accurate in its characterization of both Kyle and Cruise's technology.